There are strong reasons, both equitable and political, to do something about the current standoff over whether Florida's delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention should be seated. But the idea currently floated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) of conducting a "do-over" via an all vote-by-mail primary makes me very concerned about the security and accuracy of such a vote. A far better option would be to award delegates 50-50 to Sens. Clinton and Obama.
Politically knowledgeable people know the relevant background. As I recently explained at Slate, "Florida and Michigan famously held their primaries too early this year, violating the scheduling rules set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in those states, and Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot. ("Uncommitted" got 40 percent of the votes, compared with Clinton's 55 percent.) Clinton won both of these contests, and she has taken the position that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated, a position rejected by the DNC chair, Howard Dean."
Certainly seating Florida and Michigan delegates elected from these early states a very bad precedent for the Democratic Party. It would only encourage states in future elections to buck party rules and increase the race to the front of the line in an already front-loaded primary system. But Michigan and Florida voters didn't make this choice of when to vote; politicians made if for them, and it seems unfair to punish these voters by not allowing their votes to count or their delegates to be seated. And in any case, these states are too important to the Democrats in the November general election to risk angering them now.
One possibility some have suggested is simply seating Florida and Michigan delegations with an even split between Clinton and Obama delegates. That's not what the Florida and Michigan voters chose, but that seems fairer than approving the results of a contest run under unfair rules and conditions.
A fairer option -- if it is feasible -- is a "do-over." Michigan, which already has great experience running caucuses, is rumored to be planning a late spring caucus.
Florida presents a much more difficult problem. It has no experience with caucuses, and it is in the process of transitioning, yet again, between voting technologies. (Florida was one of the first states to phase out those inaccurate punch card voting machines, but they were replaced by electronic voting machines. The state has now decided to scrap the electronic machines, given public distrust over their use, and is replacing them with other technology such as optical scan equipment.)
Sen. Nelson's call for voting by mail has some surface appeal. The election is simple -- a single question with a small number of choices. Poll workers would not be required, nor the rolling out of election machinery. It will be cheaper, which is especially important because there is a large argument over who should pay for a do-over primary.
But an all vote by mail primary makes me very nervous. Putting aside the fact that such a vote is not allowed under current Florida law and would need approval of the Florida legislature, vote by mail simply is not as secure as polling place voting. Vote by mail is essentially a mandatory absentee ballot election. Absentee balloting raises the specter of voter fraud and coercion, for the simple reason that polling officials are absent when voting choices are made. In the absence of a secret ballot, it becomes much easier to enter into an illegal vote buying contract, because the buyer can verify how the seller has voted. In addition, because voting takes place out of the public eye, the possibility of coercion or intimidation about how to vote becomes possible. Even if a Florida do-over would not produce a clear delegate winner between Clinton and Obama, it would have great political importance and could well influence the votes of the superdelegates, who will hold the balance of power if this issue goes to the convention.
It might be that my concerns over the security of vote-by-mail in Florida are overstated. After all, Oregon's vote by mail system has been touted as an excellent and fair system. Perhaps so for Oregon. But what is true for Oregon is not so true for Florida. One need only think back to the massive absentee ballot fraud in the 1997 Miami mayoral race that led a court to order a new election. And there's something especially worrisome about rolling out a new system for counting votes for the first time in a presidential contest. It is like debuting your new play straight on Broadway.
The worst-case scenario for a Florida do-over is that the race is exceedingly close, and credible questions are raised about the fairness of the voting process. That won't help anyone -- especially Democrats -- when Florida voters return to the polls in November.
Mainly because its illegal, http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC6102.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0101-%3ESection%206102#0101.6102
101.6102 Under Florida's - Mail ballot elections; limitations.
Any state-level organization that decides that they can flaunt the rules of their national leaders at will has said loud and clear that rules do not mean diddly-squat to them. I don't know how you could possibly say it any louder than "SCREW YOU! We're having our primary early!".
Just assume any replacement primary will be crooked, and you won't be disappointed. Who knows - you might even be pleasantly surprised!
The "state-run" organization that did this was the Florida Legislature. No state legislature should kowtow to a national political party. The changed date was attached to an election reform bill. It could have happened to any citizen in the US. Furthermore, New Hampshire also voted out of the "acceptable dates "as defined by the DNC. And no one has suggested that they be penalized.
Obama didn't said "can't ", he and others said that Superdelegates "shouldn't" neglect the public vote unless there's some kind of serious problem. Which isn't in this campaign where both candidates are capable whatever the supporters might think.
The comparison with Bobby Kennedy's race in 1968 is of course rubbish, since back then we weren't dealing with changing the rules of the race after the race had already taken place.
As I stated before, the easiest and probably most reasonable way to solve the deadlock would be to count Florida as it voted but strip 50% of their delegates. That would give Clinton a net win of 19 delegates. You can't do the same with Michigan because all but one candidate had the integrity to take their name off the ballot in support of the Democratic Party. Let Michigan have the caucus they seem to be preparing for. Obama will most probably net a solid amount of delegates out of a Michigan caucus. Clinton can be happy with her net gain in Florida, Obama with a possible net gain in Michigan. Which would result in seating delegates from Florida and Michigan without turning the whole race upside down. I wonder whether both candidates would have the guts to go along with such a plan. A test of leadership?
Learn, people! Learn!
Florida.
There's a chance of fraud with EVERY method of voting. In my state, since the turnout was so much larger than usual at the caucus, we ran out of printed ballots and people in large numbers were voting on "Post-it" notes. How about the chance of fraud with THAT? But I don't suppose you'd be willing to nullify OBAMA's overwhelming victory in MY state because of THAT, would you?
Obama may well win this thing-- no doubt. But if you don't believe he can win legitimately without your manipulating the process or outright cheating, then I don't think it's a disavowal of "the politics of old" afterall, is it?
SEAT FLORIDA'S & MICHIGAN'S DELEGATES!!! DEMOCRACY NOW!!!
Plenty of stores have had their systems hacked and credit card numbers stolen, so don't think security is ever perfect.
I’m listening to CNN a little while ago and Rev. Al Sharpton, at the FL Chapter of his National Action Network is threatening to file suit if a do-over doesn’t happen. He said the voters, who did not go to the polls because the DNC said their vote wouldn’t count, can’t be disenfranchised.
First let me say, I voted for John Edwards in the primary AND I believe the FL vote should stand. That being said however, it seemed okay to disenfranchise 1.7 million FL voters when Sen. Obama was ahead and BEFORE it looked like some real attention might be paid to the fact that THOSE votes wouldn't count (at the recent State of the Black Union in LA, Rev. Sharpton said, "Now that we're ahead, you want FL and MI to count, that ain't gon' happen."). So, if Rev. Sharpton's concerns now are solely about voter disenfranchisement overall, why was no lawsuit threatened then? Why now? Because his concerns are not about voter disenfranchisement overall – that pesky civil rights issue for all upon which he’s hung his hat for years.
Voters who did not feel it important to go to the polls at all because they had no interest in, or felt unaffected by other issues on the ballot like verifiable paper ballots and Amendment 1 - a couple of reasons for the primary date being moved - now should be able to go back and vote for the presidential nominee when they had a chance to do so on January 29th just like everyone else who thought their vote for the nominee would not count but wanted to be heard on both local and national issues? I’ll plead to the naivete of which I’m sure to be accused here because for me, voting is a civic duty on all levels. I am a hardly-wealthy, taxpaying homeowner with a homestead exemption who voted against Amendment 1 because we’ve had more than enough tax-cuts for the wealthy. It passed anyway but at least I had my say.
True, the candidates were barred from campaigning here but how does that affect the senator from IL? He ran ads here on TV, we have newspapers, radio and access to the internet - we all knew who he was. He got 30% of the vote. The candidates were allowed to fundraise in FL and though he and Sen. Clinton were here, he was the first candidate with “boots on the ground” says this Tampa Bay link from September ’07 regarding his presence at a fundraiser: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking.
That he’s NOW had time to fine tune a message since Jan. 29th means we should have re-vote? Also interesting is that when asked about ensuring FL would have a say in the nomination process, he said he would “do what’s right by Florida voters.” What, only if he’d already garnered enough delegates before the convention to be the nominee? How magnanimous of him. He knew back in ’07 that FL would move the primary date and there was none of this “put-my-surrogates-out-there-to fight this” going on then. Now that he hasn’t, he’s arguing not to seat the delegates as is but have a re-vote. That’s just plain hypocrisy in the face of a poor political strategy.
Ideally, I say let the FL vote stand and seat the delegates. If not that, then let it go to the credentialing committee and have those in “power” tell us they don’t want our vote to count BEFORE the November elections.
-The Florida primary was driven by a property tax amendment that affected many of the property owners in Florida contrary to what the MSM and Charlie Crist would have you believe. Of course they do not report this because then it would take away the premise that the primary was the driving force and weakens their argument.
-The only reason all of the names were on the Florida ballot is because by FLORIDA STATUTE they had to be on the primary ballot if they wanted to be on the presidential ballot. Evidently this is not the case in MI.
-The Republican legislature and Republican Governor approved moving the Republican primary up thus affecting the Democratic primary. The Republican party stripped only 50% of their delegates while the Democrats went postal and stripped ALL in accordance with their By-Laws. This was agreed upon by the DNC Rules Committee of which all candidates had representation. There was not protest from any of the campaigns who agreed to follow the rules and also agreed not to campaign there. The nerve that the Governor has to now insist they be seated is pure nonsense and pandering at its worst when he was the one who allowed this to happen. There was also a provision in the bill that the Democrats had to go along with so in effect the Democrats were trapped. Charlie Crist is a Republican and he will look out for Republican interests above all despite his effort at being so sincere. Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
-Hillary Clinton has a vested interest in Florida because she has the super delegates such as the Alcee Hastings, Bill Nelson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Corrine Brown, etc. As it stands now, they will not be seated. If Barack Obama had won, can you honestly say Hillary Clinton and her campaign (Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes two former high powered members of the DNC elite) would be fighting so hard to get them seated? Terry McAuliffe was in Howard Dean's position and set this whole thing up for Hillary and Bill to waltz into the WH. It was supposed to be over on Super Tuesday.
-Part of Hillary Clinton and her DNC rich campaign is to get as much of the popular vote as possible so she can go to the convention and discount the states Obama has won and say she has won the big states and the popular vote. She has all of the old DNC working for her: Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes, Governor Rendell, and many more. This is another tactic to get the nomination just like the VP crap she is offering the front runner. AUDACITY...
My 8 year old granddaughter questioned why Hillary Clinton was trying to break the rules. My 14 year old grandson is reporting on this in his class today and is learning valuable lessons about integrity and the Democratic process that has come under assault the past 7 years and now by the party of the same name. He says he is disappointed because rules are rules and if you change them at the end of the game so the other team benefits then what is the point of having rules.
It is evident what Hillary Clinton and her campaign are trying to do to this party. Each day she continues in this race she destroys the credibility of the party in an effort to improve hers. She and Bill have done great damage to their standing in the Democratic Party and with many of the voters in the Party. It is truly a sad time for the Democratic Party.
A house divided cannot stand. This house, the Democratic Party, will go down in flames...
BTW You need to listen to Reverend Al again because obviously you do not understand where he is coming from. It ticks me off when people try to change the rules in the middle of the game. You need to direct your state Republican Governor, Republican and Democratic Party, and Democratic State Party Leaders. The hypocrisy is in changing the rules when you voted for it not against it when you had the chance. I guess once again for the Hillary Clinton supporters, she was against it before she was for it. Reverse of her vote on the Iraq War.
-I NEVER said the primary was the only driving force behind the date change. I know the Florida primary date move was driven by a property tax amendment, as I said, I am a property owner. (And by the way, it has been reported in the press). But, that was not the ONLY reason. The 100% bi-partisan mandate had to with wanting to have a verifiable paper trail (given all our previous election problems, I can see why they all supported that). A third reason, and one about which FL voters SHOULD be angry, had more to do with a "We are just as important as NH, Iowa, etc." pissing contest decided by the "Executive Committee" of the Florda Dems Party - not the voters. And don't get it twisted, Charlie Crist's support of seating FL delegates has nothing to do with my point of view because I know the reason he's stomping is that he HAS his candidate despite the 50% punishment they received.
-No argument here about why all names were on the Florida ballot. However, all names were there and Sen. Obama got 30% of the vote. Like you, I don't know about MI.
-"Democrats went postal and stripped ALL in accordance with their By-Laws." This is where the hypocrisy in the face of a poor political strategy comes in for me. ALL of the campaigns did know. And if you read the link I gave in my post, you will see that Sen. Obama had intentions of "doing what's right by FL voters," if he had the power to seat them as the presumptive nominee - if that were to happen. Now that it hasn't, what did he mean I wonder? Doing right by NOT allowing everyone to have a say? Doubt it. I don't honestly know WHAT Sen. Clinton or her campaign would now be doing if the situation was reversed because I cannot know what is in anyone's mind. I just listen to the facts and draw my conclusions based on them and my beliefs. What I see is the Obama campaign "fighting" awfully hard to say if and when my vote counts or doesn't.
-"Terry McAuliffe was in Howard Dean's position and set this whole thing up for Hillary and Bill to waltz into the WH. It was supposed to be over on Super Tuesday." Maybe that was their strategy. I don't know because I wasn't there. But it obviously didn't work. And if that was the master plan, why wasn't the Obama campaign out in full force from the beginning? Why now? Because it looks like he could win? Civic duty ALWAYS, not just when it looks like your preferred candidate can win is all I have to say.
-"She has all of the old DNC working for her: Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe, Harold Ickes, Governor Rendell, and many more." And??? By the way, Obama's "rich" camp is nothing to sneeze at.
For your 8 year old granddaughter and 14 year old grandson, what a wonderful teaching and learning opportunity - about the value of "PERSONAL integrity" in the face of ALL those who seem not to value it! Hopefully they will learn that in life, they're likely to come upon those without integrity but that doesn't mean they have to sacrifice their own for the sake of winning. And regarding the Democratic process, I hate to tell you - it is what it is and always has been. Machinations like these did not just start now, or even 7 years ago - which is all the more reason for them to learn sooner, rather than later that when you have an opportunity to be heard (as on January 29th), take it. And he is right, "rules are rules and if you change them at the end of the game so the other team benefits then what is the point of having rules." Remember, Sen. Obama tried to change the rules as it relates to superdelegates in the "middle" of the game so that he would benefit. Did you explain that part to him as well?
I have to disagree that it's "what Hillary Clinton and her campaign are trying to do to this party." The party as a whole - "powers that be" as well as the voters - are doing a bang-up job all by their lonesome. And I agree, "It is truly a sad time for the Democratic Party." Hopefully we all can decide to do what is right before any flames start flickering.
No, I don't need to listen again because I'm quite aware from where Rev. Sharpton is coming and just because I'm a Black woman, doesn't mean I think he's right on this one. You don't disenfranchise voters who WENT to the polls and threaten to sue in favor of those who DID NOT, just so your candidate can win. Disenfranchisement by any measure is wrong but the latter group had the opportunity to be in former group had they just done their civic duty. Then maybe all of us FL voters could be standing in unison right now fighting for our voices to be heard. I'm just saying.
"The hypocrisy is in changing the rules when you voted for it not against it when you had the chance." Agree - for both campaigns. "I guess once again for the Hillary Clinton supporters, she was against it before she was for it. Reverse of her vote on the Iraq War." You know, that dog just won't hunt with me. People should really lay that blame where it belongs - at the feet of Shrub and his CIA cronies who lied. And while Sen. Obama may have spoken against it, he was not privy to the information Congress had nor was he there, so we'll never really know how he would have "voted" on the issue.
And BTW, since my candidate suspended his campaign, I had been torn between remaining candidates. I'm not torn anymore.
HILLARY CLINTON IN CONSIDERATION FOR A RUN
AT THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNORSHIP.
YUP...SPREAD THE WORD.
GREAT JOB FOR HER.
IF SHE CAN SUGGEST
BARACK BE VEEP, WE CAN SUGGEST SHE
RUN BACK TO NEW YORK AND RUN THAT STATE.
HILLARY CLINTON EYEING RUN AT NEW YORK STATE
GOVERNOR JOB.
E-MAIL anyone and everyone who needs to know!
Michigan and Florida knew the consquences of moving their primaries up. So why are they complaining now? As much as I think they deserve to be part of the political process they forteited their delegates by changing their primaries. This controversy should be put in the lap of the decision makers that changed the primary dates. Why is their bad decision suddenly dominating the conversation when we have so many more issues to deal with? It is the Clintons last ditch effort to stay in the game. I could imagine the squawking if Obama was behind in votes and delegates and was trying to get Florida seated. I could imagine his treatment in the press would have been totally different if he lost 12 in a row.
The Clinton's constant turmoil is very destructive to Democrats. I am so sick of her and she makes me so angry and then add the tacky skits on SNL -- I just find myself dropping another donation for Obama. Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Give me a break!
However, I agree. Rules were rules, and it should not count now. Also, I oppose a re-vote at all if public money is used to pay for it.
a Seating the delegates from Fla and Mi will satisfy the two states. Dividing the delegates evenly between Obama and Hil, remainders to Edwards should satisfy the candidates. With both of these entities satisfied, the DEM party should be satisfied. Sharpton's idea should be tossed and sent to the ditch. If folks didn't go out to vote, shame on them. Wait until Nov. then they get another chance. We need to grow up and learn how to budget on a budget. We can't keep spending to keep up wih Hil, JmcC, and the bushes. Stop this drama and do it right Howard Dean, or suspend Hil and let Obama go on with this election.
Here is why: It doesn't get anyone closer to winning. In order to win nomination a candidate needs a simple majority of the total delegates. That is why they keep talking about 2024.5 delegates to win. They didn't just make that number up. If Florida is counted in full, the target number will rise by 92.5. However, you are then giving each candidate 92.5 delegates in the split. The out come is null. NO EFFECT.